Lot of Pressure on Nadal, IF he cannot get back into the Top 5 then he will have to beat Sampras's Record

Can Nadal beat Sampras's record ?


  • Total voters
    14

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Of course Pete is a legend. Who denies that? I don't see why this cross era comparison needs to be made. Its impossible to compare this way. Yes its a trivia and you've eliminated people like Mac who have done it so I don't even know if its a unique one in any way.

You overreacted that day on the Running forehand post as well on a light comment, I was silent at that time while you were going on and on, this is the second time you are finding Sampras-Nadal talks annoying so I find it a bit disturbing. Even if the post compared Sampras and Nadal you should be honored, Sampras is not just any legend/any atg, he is as good as Nadal and for some people even better since he has a better record on more surfaces than Nadal and a higher dominance in his era. Nadal has his own records over Pete and a lot of people rate him ahead today since he has more slams by a good margin (22), that is all good both ways, so there is no need to feel upset at seeing cross era comparisons, this post was not to compare but even if it were, there is no need to frown over it because end of the day that is what we do here, so if we get upset then better to ignore the post as long as there is nothing demeaning about any player, in this case certainly.

Reg McEnroe, no I did not ignore him, check the post properly first, he is already mentioned. He was ranked in the top 5 at 30/31 but honestly he was not successful in slams & restricted to a few small carpet tourneys I think so. He did not a reach a single slam final after age 26, so he being in top 5 was irrelevant.


339567188_1341235983117987_4187075908600583730_n.jpg
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
You overreacted that day on the Running forehand post as well on a light comment, I was silent at that time while you were going on and on, this is the second time you are finding Sampras-Nadal talks annoying so I find it a bit disturbing. Even if the post compared Sampras and Nadal you should be honored, Sampras is not just any legend/any atg, he is as good as Nadal and for some people even better since he has a better record on more surfaces than Nadal and a higher dominance in his era. Nadal has his own records over Pete and a lot of people rate him ahead today since he has more slams by a good margin (22), that is all good both ways, so there is no need to feel upset at seeing cross era comparisons, this post was not to compare but even if it were, there is no need to frown over it because end of the day that is what we do here, so if we get upset then better to ignore the post as long as there is nothing demeaning about any player, in this case certainly.

Reg McEnroe, no I did not ignore him, check the post properly first, he is already mentioned. He was ranked in the top 5 at 30/31 but honestly he was not successful in slams & restricted to a few small carpet tourneys I think so. He did not a reach a single slam final after age 26, so he being in top 5 was irrelevant.


339567188_1341235983117987_4187075908600583730_n.jpg
ok - if your aim was not to compare, I am ok with that. Honestly Nadal is at the end of his career. Whether he will come back to top 5 or not, I don't know and I don't think so.
 

Ombelibable

Professional
Athletes who left the Top 5 permanently have always failed to reach another Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years.
Sampras and Ivanisevic probably the only 2 people to beat that.....Sampras is the oldest to do it at 31+ years.
IF Nadal cannot get back into the top 5 then it means he is fighting against Time to beat Sampras's record.
If there is anyone who can beat Pete's record then it must be Rafa due to his dominant clay performance.


Latest age in Top 5 vs Latest age in a Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years [Min 4 Finals Reached]

Federer - 39 years 6 months vs 37 years 10 months [-1.6 years]
Nadal - 36 years 7 months vs 35 years 11 months [-8 months]
Djokovic - 35 years 10 months vs 35 years 8 months [-2 months]
Connors - 35 years 10 months vs 31 years 9 months [-4 years]
Agassi - 35 years 6 months vs 35 years 4 months [-2 months]
Arthur Ashe - 32 years 11 months vs 31 years 11 months [-1 year]
Wawrinka - 32 years 5 months vs 32 years 2 months [-3 months]
Lendl - 31 years 10 months vs 30 years 10 months [-1 year]
Mcenroe - 31 years vs 26 years 10 months [-4 years]
.
.
Vilas - 30 years 11 months vs 29 year 10 months [-1 year]
Murray - 30 years 5 months vs 29+ [-1.5 year]
.
.
Sampras - 29 years 10 months vs 31 years 14 days [+1.2 years]
.
.
Becker - 28 years 11 months vs 28+ years [-11 months]
Rafter - 28 years 10 months vs 28.5 years [-5 months]
Edberg - 28 years 9 months vs 27 years [-1.75 years]
.
.
Thiem - 27 years 9 months vs 27 years [-9 months]
Medvedev - 27 years 1 month vs 25 years 11 months [-1.2 years]
Roddick - 27 years vs 26 years 10 months [- 2 months]
Ivanisevic - 26 years 1 months vs 29 years 9 months [+3.7 years]
Chang - 25 years 11 months vs 24.5 years [-1.5 years]
Borg - 25 years 11 months vs 25+ years [-11 months]
Safin - 25 years 9 months vs 25 years [-9 months]
Kuerten - 25 years 8 months vs 24 years 10 months [-10 months]
Wilander - 25 years 6 days vs 24+ years [-1.5 years]
.
.
.
Hewitt - 24 years 10 months vs 23 years 10 months [-1 year]
Courier - 23 years 8 months vs 22 years 11 months [-9 months]
What is this absurd, made-up stat?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

RaulRamirez

Legend
He was great at creating physical freak kick boxer like physically never seen before in tennis,an lefty antidote to mostly righty tour from solid/average to significantly weaker backhand side.Thougt him running meters behind the base line, moon-balling heavy defensive shots to that backhand side,to open the court to muscle FHs.Guy was strategic genius.Deserves all credit for that.But Moya with base he got helped Nadal to become more aggressive player than he ever was and actually prolonged Nadal career.Remember he used to hit like 5 winners per set max.OP Nadal just fell of Top 10 for the first time in years.Lets give him some time ,to see the effect

???
Rafa didn't hit moonballs. Moonballs are defensive baseline lobs that generally test an opponent's patience. Legal and legit, but a bit of junkballing. Of course, in a lefty-righty matchup, a CC forehand goes to your opponent's backhand, and there's some strategy to try to create this situation, while the opponent can also hit CC forehands to your backhand. But again, Rafa was not hitting defensive moonballs. Most were hit with great velocity and topspin.

I agree with most of your other points, but do get tired of people talking about moonballing, as I'm old enough to remember some moonballing players, and their strokes were nothing like Rafa's. It's like saying that a baseball pitcher threw a blooper ball (years and years ago, called an eephus pitch) when it was a 97 MPH rising fastball.
 
Last edited:

Azure

G.O.A.T.
???
Rafa didn't hit moonballs. Moonballs are defensive baseline lobs that generally test an opponent's patience. Legal and legit, but a bit of junkballing. Of course, in a lefty-righty matchup, a CC forehand goes to your opponent's backhand, and there's some strategy to try to create this situation, while the opponent can also hit CC forehands to your backhand. But again, Rafa was not hitting defensive moonballs. Most were hit with great velocity and topspin.

I agree with most of your other points, but do get tired of people talking about moonballing, as I'm old enough to remember some moonballing player, and their strokes were nothing like Rafa's. It's like saying that a baseball pitcher threw a blooper ball (years and years ago, called an eephus pitch) when it was a 97 MPH rising fastball.
Oh its just a swipe at Nadal. Also notice the "create physical freak" rather than better terms such as "gifted athlete". One would think Toni was a Victor creating a Frankenstein. Derogatory but nothing unexpected.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
This statistic is very interesting (I think most people just didn't understand it).

If a player was able to win a Grand Slam (or reach a Grand Slam final) and still he did NOT enter the top 5 just after that, it means he was probably out of the top 15 before the tournament, and this means that he (if he was a great player before) was having a very bad period (of at least one year or more) where he was basically finished (especially if it was at the end of his career).

The OP's statistics shows exactly this, that there have been only two exceptions to the rule (the rule being that if a great player is out of the top 10 or top 15 for a long period of time, normally at the end of his career, then he will NOT reach another grand slam final after that).
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
This statistic is very interesting (I think most people just didn't understand it).

If a player was able to win a Grand Slam (or reach a Grand Slam final) and still he did NOT enter the top 5 just after that, it means he was probably out of the top 15 before the tournament, and this means that he (if he was a great player before) was having a very bad period (of at least one year or more) where he was basically finished (especially if it was at the end of his career).

The OP's statistics shows exactly this, that there have been only two exceptions to the rule (the rule being that if a great player is out of the top 10 or top 15 for a long period of time, normally at the end of his career, then he will NOT reach another grand slam final after that).
Is this applicable to big 3? All of their declines are due to injuries. Also it will make a huge difference if Nadal's Wimbledon points are included. He will be around world number 9 right now.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
Is this applicable to big 3? All of their declines are due to injuries. Also it will make a huge difference if Nadal's Wimbledon points are included. He will be around world number 9 right now.
All included.

Normally great players start to fade away at the end because of the accumulation of injuries.

That is the main reason why they eventually leave the top 10 and they are not able anymore to reach Grand Slam finals from a certain point in time.

Even the exception in this list, Sampras, was having terrible chronic back pains from about 1998 and got worse from 2000 (and it probably was one of the main reasons why he was "finished" in the last 2 years of his career).

So yes, for great players, decline at the tail end is almost always tied to physical problems.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
This statistic is very interesting (I think most people just didn't understand it).

If a player was able to win a Grand Slam (or reach a Grand Slam final) and still he did NOT enter the top 5 just after that, it means he was probably out of the top 15 before the tournament, and this means that he (if he was a great player before) was having a very bad period (of at least one year or more) where he was basically finished (especially if it was at the end of his career).

The OP's statistics shows exactly this, that there have been only two exceptions to the rule (the rule being that if a great player is out of the top 10 or top 15 for a long period of time, normally at the end of his career, then he will NOT reach another grand slam final after that).

Yes, this is what I wanted to convey in the thread.

Stats are more of an indicator of when the athletes bodies just failed them. Pete and Goran are just exceptions, pulled off the impossible. Slowly Nadal is approaching that mark as well, another 12 months like he had just now and he will be there, in Pete/Goran type situation.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Oh its just a swipe at Nadal. Also notice the "create physical freak" rather than better terms such as "gifted athlete". One would think Toni was a Victor creating a Frankenstein. Derogatory but nothing unexpected.
I guess I didn't consider the source, and kind of passed over that.
As always -- well, among many, including those don't mean to be derogatory -- Rafa's tennis skills (and also Novak's) are greatly underappreciated, as is Federer's heart and mental strength.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
Yes, this is what I wanted to convey in the thread.

Stats are more of an indicator of when the athletes bodies just failed them. Pete and Goran are just exceptions, pulled off the impossible. Slowly Nadal is approaching that mark as well, another 12 months like he had just now and he will be there, in Pete/Goran type situation
Ivanisevic's case was indeed a miracle, because his shoulder was severely damaged.

How he was able in that state to defeat consecutively Moyá, Rusedski, Roddick, Safin, Henman and Rafter was nothing short of a miracle.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Here is a stat for ya :

How many times has it been said on TTW that : Nadal is FINNISH !

I think people saying the Great Bull is done have been 100% wrong for years if not decades.

I think stats about Nadals impending demise are :

1679372621finnish-flag-gif-animation-7.gif
Nadal is still Spanish.
:)
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
In fact, the "Age Shift" that some people like to mention here, is just medical advances in treatments, allowing players today to stay injury-free much longer than before.

If you watch again that list of the OP, you can see that many great players of the past were severely damaged from about 25-26 years old, leading to a steep decline after that. It was a shame but it was normal then.

Very few great players were able to keep a "not too damaged body" and stay competitive until 28-29 or even 30.

Even Lendl got tired of fighting against a chronic back pain that got unbearable when he was 32 (that was considered VERY OLD at that time anyway).

Many of all those great players from the past could have kept playing until 33-35 had they been born in this era.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
In fact, the "Age Shift" that some people like to mention here, is just medical advances in treatments, allowing players today to stay injury-free much longer than before.

If you watch again that list of the OP, you can see that many great players of the past were severely damaged from about 25-26 years old, leading to a steep decline after that. It was a shame but it was normal then.

Very few great players were able to keep a "not too damaged body" and stay competitive until 28-29 or even 30.

Even Lendl got tired of fighting against a chronic back pain that got unbearable when he was 32 (that was considered VERY OLD at that time anyway).

Many of all those great players from the past could have kept playing until 33-35 had they been born in this era.

Yes Great age shift (+ 6 years) is very much real, even average players have managed to have super long careers now

Kevin Anderson was in the top 5 at age 32 years, 9 Months
David Ferrer was in top 5 at 32 years, 6 months
Berdych @ 30 years
Nishikori @ 29 years, 7 months

All of them stayed in top 5 at an older age than Boris Becker which is laughable since Becker has like 10.5+ years interval between his 1st and last grand slam win.
 

Topspin_80

Hall of Fame
Pete won his last slam at 31 and 14 days
Connors won his last slam at 30 years 11 months (1.5 months younger than Pete)


Rosewall I agree won older , but then he is a legend from the pre open era, his record is more of a result of homogenous conditions that he and laver were accustomed to, a lot of old men in the early 70s hold longevity records, there is a person called Andres Gimono who French Open at almost 35, does it means his longevity is on par with Rafa's in Paris ?
Pete Sampras DOB August 12, 1971

Last slam win, USO 2002. Final played on September 9th

At the time of the win, Sampras was 31 yo and 28 days.

Jimmy Connors DOB September 2, 1952

Last slam win, USO 1983. Final played on September 11th

At the time of the win, Jimbo was 31 yo and 9 days.

Jimbo was 19 days younger than Pete, but both of them were 31 yo when they won their last slam.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Pete Sampras DOB August 12, 1971

Last slam win, USO 2002. Final played on September 9th

At the time of the win, Sampras was 31 yo and 28 days.

Jimmy Connors DOB September 2, 1952

Last slam win, USO 1983. Final played on September 11th

At the time of the win, Jimbo was 31 yo and 9 days.

Jimbo was 19 days younger than Pete, but both of them were 31 yo when they won their last slam.

I was thinking from the date of the beginning of the slam, but your logic is also right....
 

Topspin_80

Hall of Fame
I was thinking from the date of the beginning of the slam, but your logic is also right....
Your way of thinking is flawed, it's incorrect to count from the beginning of the slam, cause at the beginning, they ain't
won nothing yet, only after the final someone can be proclaimed winner.

The dates I posted are the right ones, not yours
.

Pete Sampras DOB August 12, 1971

Last slam win, USO 2002. Final played on September 9th

At the time of the win, Sampras was 31 yo and 28 days.

Jimmy Connors DOB September 2, 1952

Last slam win, USO 1983. Final played on September 11th

At the time of the win, Jimbo was 31 yo and 9 days.

Jimbo was 19 days younger than Pete, but both of them were 31 yo when they won their last slam
Pete won his last slam at 31 and 14 days
Connors won his last slam at 30 years 11 months (1.5 months younger than Pete)


Rosewall I agree won older , but then he is a legend from the pre open era, his record is more of a result of homogenous conditions that he and laver were accustomed to, a lot of old men in the early 70s hold longevity records, there is a person called Andres Gimono who French Open at almost 35, does it means his longevity is on par with Rafa's in Paris ?
It really makes no sense to count the win from the beginning of the tournament, when players haven't played yet and nobody
knows the outcome of the championship
.

Connors played, and won the final of the USO 1983, on September 11, 1983.
At that point in time, Connors was 31 yo and 9 days, and there is no way around that.
This statement is the only one right.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Your way of thinking is flawed, it's incorrect to count from the beginning of the slam, cause at the beginning, they ain't
won nothing yet, only after the final someone can be proclaimed winner.

The dates I posted are the right ones, not yours
.



It really makes no sense to count the win from the beginning of the tournament, when players haven't played yet and nobody
knows the outcome of the championship
.

Connors played, and won the final of the USO 1983, on September 11, 1983.
At that point in time, Connors was 31 yo and 9 days, and there is no way around that.
This statement is the only one right.

Doesn't matter.

I follow UTS website and they consider starting dates, I like that convention even though date of final might be more accurate, but that doesn't matter end of the day, it is just a way of expressing things. Connors will always have won his last slam date younger than Sampras even if you consider final date, doesn't help his case at all bud.

 

Topspin_80

Hall of Fame
Doesn't matter.

I follow UTS website and they consider starting dates, I like that convention even though date of final might be more accurate, but that doesn't matter end of the day, it is just a way of expressing things. Connors will always have won his last slam date younger than Sampras even if you consider final date, doesn't help his case at all bud.

I never claimed that Connors was older than Pete, what I said was that Connors was 31 yo and not 30 + as you claimed, chap!

One more time what I said:
Pete Sampras DOB August 12, 1971

Last slam win, USO 2002. Final played on September 9th

At the time of the win, Sampras was 31 yo and 28 days.

Jimmy Connors DOB September 2, 1952

Last slam win, USO 1983. Final played on September 11th

At the time of the win, Jimbo was 31 yo and 9 days.

Jimbo was 19 days younger than Pete, but both of them were 31 yo when they won their last slam.
I clearly said that Jimbo was younger than Pete:
Jimbo was 19 days younger than Pete, but both of them were 31 yo when they won their last slam.

You can not count, you can not read!!!!!!!!!!!

But you sure can run your mouth off!!!
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I never claimed that Connors was older than Pete, what I said was that Connors was 31 yo and not 30 + as you claimed, chap!

One more time what I said:

I clearly said that Jimbo was younger than Pete:
Jimbo was 19 days younger than Pete, but both of them were 31 yo when they won their last slam.

You can not count, you can not read!!!!!!!!!!!

But you sure can run your mouth!!!

They are both close in age, but if it matters so much then fine both were 31+. Anyway I am no Connors basher and I read you post the first time itself, so there is no need to be worked up even if Connors is mentioned as 30+, it is not a big deal, but yeah they both became champs at 31+ if that is so important.
 

Topspin_80

Hall of Fame
They are both close in age, but if it matters so much then fine both were 31+. Anyway I am no Connors basher and I read you post the first time itself, so there is no need to be worked up even if Connors is mentioned as 30+, it is not a big deal, but yeah they both became champs at 31+ if that is so important.
That is better Rick, thanks.
 
Top